THIS IS TO LET CONTRIBUTORS KNOW THAT DAFFY HAS IMPLEMENTED A 24 HOUR ONLY EDITING/DELETING POLICY FOR ALL POSTS.

Since Daffy has not done this himself so far and it is important that contributors know what they are getting into on this forum, this is to inform contributors of the above new policy (which so far has been mentioned by Daffy and discussed on the topic about 'rewiring the brain').

Contributors to this forum will not have control over their posts after 24 hours anymore, unless he changes the settings and so far he has ignored both notes on the public forum and private messages I have sent him to request this.

This policy was not the case when contributors began posting and I have attempted to reason with him to change this so that he does not have total control in retrospect at least.

I find this policy troubling and over controlling and have made this clear to Daffy but so far have not received any indication that he will give his 'permission' for contributors to edit their posts after 24 hours.

This rule has been implemented without consulting the contributors in advance and he has so far refused requests to even open the posts so that those that do not agree with the new policy have access to their posts, at least for a time period.

Under these circumstances I would most likely not have contributed to this site and respectfully request yet again, that this policy be changed, at least until everyone is fully aware of it.

Having said all this it had not been my intention to edit my posts at this time, but I am concerned about the power that the moderator has over all the contributors and do not wish to have anything to do with a forum run in this manner.

Daffy's concern about deletion of information is correct in respect of the disturbance to a stream of dialogue, where the presumption is that at some time after the post has been put up people will continue to take the time to read through the stream -ad infinitum. This may or may not be the case. We do not have the necessary evidence to hand. If someone does have records of the viewing statistics over time we could better know how we stand on this issue.

The decision to change the ground rules may have an even more profound effect on the content of information put up on this forum. It would appear that Daffy has not thought this though. For example -- the kind of information about sensitive issues of a very personal nature, connected with abuse etc. have been some of the most valuable pieces of information for many who have visited this forum. Enabling them to feel happy about opening up and freeing themselves of long established pent up bad feelings and frustrations. If forum members were to know that such information would remain in perpetuity on this forum, without the opportunity to remove it later - then such information may never be put here. This would take away one of the most valuable parts of this forum. Daffy has not considered that months or years later a person may simply wish to have information removed -- which has past its "sell-by-date" as it were - i.e. no one is reading it much.

So Daffy should couple with the new DAFFY'S LAW with the offer to receive personal requests (for what ever reason) to have information removed - which Daffy will have to do himself.

There is the other issue that - to change the ground rules in an autocratic way is not the modern way of dealing with things. As it may affect many current users it should be a democratic decision made after lengthy consultation - i.e. personally I did not visit this forum for a period of several months during this year due to other commitments. Hence, time is required for the message and opportunity to vote to get to all those who are likely to be affected.

The other value which is taken away with the new DAFFY'S LAW is connected with clarity and correction. Let us assume that people get value from a stream of dialogue "ad-infinitum" as stated above. In that case where there is a particularly interesting exchange of views, with interesting information in it - it may be necessary to go back days or weeks later a review it to see what was said in an unclear or unhelpful way - and to amend it. This happened to post which I put up on the stream "Mistakes against the Shankara Tradition". When I saw that people were making certain comments - I realised that I had not made clear in the beginning what I had intended. I reviewed earlier posts and amended them to make them clearer. Also I may have removed a post which had caused too much confusion. My overall intention was to keep to a point and to clarify it as much as possible. This opportunity is removed with the new DAFFY'S LAW.

The above are some examples of what I mean by "not thought through"

Others may have more views on this.

At least we should have the chance to debate this issue and come to a collective formula.

best wishes

Dr. Alan

SES - London 1964-1974 left due to SES interference with private life.